The thrilling development in the trial of Bradley Manning is that Manning has acknowledged he is the source of the leaked materials, but employed a whistleblower defence. His case is that he was exposing illegal acts and trying to arouse legitimate public debate. However in the kangaroo court trial the prosecution has objected to Manning’s proposed evidence, and claims that Manning’s detailed references to specific war crimes are irrelevant and should not be allowed to be made in court. In other words, the state is seeking to prevent Bradley Manning from presenting his defence, and doubtless the military “judge” will comply with the state.
In order to overshadow Manning’s defence, the government and corporate media brought out, the moment the news of Manning’s defence was announced, the “news” that the government will put in the stand an all-American hero, a US Navy Seal, one of the Zero-Torture-Thirty killers of Osama Bin Laden, who will give evidence that Bin Laden had a stash of the Wikileaks released cables in his home.
That the timing of this piece of propaganda theatre was deliberate to wipe out public perception of Manning’s defence – and his not being allowed to make it – there is absolutely no doubt. But what in any case is the real value of this evidence?
Well, it certainly adds to the mountain of evidence that the US government will go after Assange the moment he leaves the UK. But against Bradley Manning it adds nil. Who would have thought that Bin Laden would not read the Wikileaks cables? Nobody would have thought that. Hundreds of millions of people read them. Many Arab Spring protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen were motivated in part by information in the cables. Is the US government going to bring evidence on that too?
The problem is, of course, that Bin Laden was never convicted of anything. If the Americans had not murdered him, evidence from him about his view of the cables and what he intended to do with them might have been interesting. It may even have helped the prosecution. But they killed him rather than prosecute or question him, so they do not have that.
Perhaps enough time has passed for people to be a bit more dispassionate about the strange killing of Bin Laden. There was absolutely no need to kill him. He had no weapon. His small compound was completely secured by US Marines. At the time they shot Bin laden, there was nobody on the compound who could fire back. Bin Laden was an elderly man in poor health. Trained navy seals could have hauled him alive into the helicopter without adding more than 10 seconds to their mission time – and it seems they had plenty of time, time to go searching for Wikileaks documents anyway. It is perfectly plain that the truth is that Obama had instilled an understanding Bin Laden was to be killed, not captured.
But that makes no sense. If the Americans really believe the entire al-Qaida narrative which has been banged out incessantly by the media this last decade, then Bin Laden alive would have been the most valuable intelligent asset in US history. To kill him needlessly with no attempt at interrogation would be absolutely extraordinary. There was no operational need to do it in the compound that night. Keeping him alive would in no way have further endangered the troops on the operation. They did not want him to talk.
Now for a state to use the alleged intentions of somebody as evidence, when the state killed that person to avoid him giving evidence, is rather remarkable. Only in the Bradley Manning kangaroo court does it make sense.
The US government’s problem is that it has spoonfed to mainstream media journalists for years the lie that the Wikileaks cables release endangered lives. There is then this appalling lie that Assange stated that the informers deserve to be shot – a statement which the host of the small dinner has sworn was never made, and Assange swears he never said. But despite all this propagnda, and despite the fact that they are extremely keen to do so, and every mainstream media organisation in the whole world has worked on it, nobody has produced one credible instance of an individual who was harmed as a result of being named in a Wikileaks cable – unless you include the dictators whose people turned against them.
Part of the reason for this is rather prosaic. The State Department cables were not intelligence material. The media likes to call them intelligence because it sounds exciting and sells papers, but it is not intelligence material. It is just diplomatic reporting. And it is not highly classified. None of it is Top Secret – it is just Restricted or Confidential.
If the release of any material would endanger the life of the source, that material would automatically get classified Top Secret. That is why nobody has been endangered. The system works, The Americans should celebrate that, rather than try Hollywood-linked stunts to demonise Manning.
@Arbed
Good work as usual, Arbed. Can you please tell us if Bradley Manning’s time in custody since arrest would count towards any subsequent sentence if he is convicted? If you are unsure, I’ll look into it myself as I don’t want to burden you with the task of finding out. My thinking is, if it does count, then he would probably want to protract the proceedings to allow a more thorough exploration of defence opportunities.
On another note, this news of BM’s admission to being the source of the leaks allows Assange to directly defend BM’s involvement in exposing war crimes and the need for public support in his defence. He has gone from being an accused leaker to a heroic whistleblower of grave misdeeds. I think the distinction in the ensuing public commentary might be of benefit.
Good news for these people. Mrs May will not be pleased.
Sri Lanka: high court blocks Tamil deportations
The high court in London blocks the deportation of a group of failed Tamil asylum seekers who were due to be sent back to Sri Lanka on Thursday despite torture concerns.
/..
http://www.channel4.com/news/sri-lanka-high-court-blocks-tamil-deportations
1 hr ago.
Thanks for your time and replies Craig,
Despite our different views on some issues, it is much appreciated as always.
Hi Craig
I was wondering why you appear to be uncritically accepting of the ‘official’ OBL death story. It can’t be because you trust the US government to tell the truth because you don’t. Given that the official account was changed many times I really don’t don’t see how anybody could unreservedly accept it. Remember that famous pic of Hillary Clinton et. al. with her hand over her mouth wearing that shocked expression as she watches the operation? do you also remember that it was later claimed that the video feed was down during the whole business? Real operations do not need staged photo’s. Benezir Bhutto, who later died in controversial circumstances, was adamant that OBL had been dead for years. I would also add that the alleged DNA comparison (using OBL’s half sister) could not possibly produce a conclusive identification of an individual, at best an appropriate degree of relatedness might be established. Perhaps there is a reason for your marked lack of scepticism regarding the OBL story, care to comment?
Marku, you pre-empted my post by a whisker, same topic:
Does anyone remember that tense ‘situation room’ shot of Hilary and Obama and Co. as they watched OBL being killed live by Navy Seal Cam? And then they changed the story and said they didn’t watch it live and Hilary said the look of shock on her face was in fact her stifling a cough? Then they gave OBL an Islamic funeral on board the Aircraft carrier before quietly disposing of the body but nobody saw it? I really don’t understand why anyone believe such a laughable fairy tale. No photos, no body, no DNA, no witnesses except the Navy Seals who apparently died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan a few months later…where’s the evidence?
And let’s not forget those currently awaiting trial for taking part in a Distributed Denial of Service attack against Paypal in retaliation for Paypal withdrawing services to Wikileaks
Even the Guardian seems sympathetic to them if not Assange himself.
Justice for the PayPal WikiLeaks protesters: why DDoS is free speech
Some of the defendants featured in the BBC 4 documentary last week available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qxmwp/Storyville_20122013_How_Hackers_Changed_the_World_We_Are_Legion/
The BBC documentary is definitely worth watching.
On Bin Laden, I do believe he died when the US said he did. I had been told by my own sources for years that he was alive and being cared for by the ISI. I also knew the Americans weren’t really looking for him.
I’m sure I read an article just after OBL’s murder, which stated that the Navy Seals who raided the compound were mostly killed in a helicopter accident, not long after. This turned out to have been a mistake, and may even have been officially denied by Pentagon sources. I’ve no idea, but it was a curious affair. I admit, I do have a slightly conspiranoid bent.
As to the Seal giving evidence, we should call him a Performing Seal. Not to his face, of course, because he’s certainly nails hard, and would kick all of our arses. But he’s a Performing Seal nonetheless. I don’t blame him, he’s just doing what he’s told. Maybe OBL had printed off a bunch of cables (it does read as though there were papers, and thus he had a printer, but why he’d print them I don’t know). Either way, like whatever. I’ve read some of the cables. Individually, rather dull; collectively rather interesting. But I’m still not a terrorist.
And, for what it’s worth, the OBL murder finally decided me on Obama. I’d sort of been willing to accept that he was a relatively liberal voice (these things are relative) in US politics, and was holding off the real lunatics. Now – I just think he’s a shallow arse with a mean streak. And if he’s a liberal, I am not.
CE
27 Feb, 2013 – 3:30 pm
“Why wouldn’t they ‘go after’ him [Julian Assange] here, with our servile and one-sided extradition treaty?
It is political. The British government doesn’t want to appear to be bowing down to US pressure so it is more “convenient” to have Assange extradited to another country; it’s called washing ones hands.
You also said:
“I think it’s a bit of stretch to think he was killed purely to stop him testifying in the Manning case.”
He wasn’t killed to stop him testifying in the Manning case; he was killed to stop him testifying; full- stop.
You go on:
“…although it may have been one of a number of factors involved, including the obvious one of what the hell would they have done with him?”
Well they could have put him on trial in the United States where he would have faced justice for the crimes he committed; this in full view of the American public and the rest of the world.
Hi Craig
The fact that the Americans weren’t really looking for OBL supports the sceptical side of the argument rather than the ‘official’ side. I am not inclined to believe a story based entirely on information gleaned from anonymous sources.
Let us not forget that Osama’s double’s neighbour reported something quite different http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np4JiZa9Czs and a Seal, up close, didn’t recognize the man to be Osama http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GTuSu8NT1ec all very strange.
Craig, I can understand — given your access to sources — your belief that bin Laden was alive up to the time in 2011 when the U.S. claims to have killed him, but what makes you so confident that he was killed then? For the very reasons that you give (valuable intelligence source,) it would have made much more sense to take him alive. As for the claim that he was killed, couldn’t that just be a way to avoid the inconvenience of a trial? The quick disposal of the body is certainly highly suspicious.
Wikileaks Reveals Imperialist Plots Against Venezuela
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
WikiLeaks has published over 40,000 secret documents regarding Venezuela, which show the clear hand of US imperialism in efforts to topple popular and democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez.
The documents, which date from July 2004 to December 2011 and which were published through WikiLeaks twitter account @wikileaks and which are now available on WikilLeaks Global Intelligence Files online, are based on emails taken from the private US-based intelligence company, Stratfor.
This company claims to provide analysis for multinational corporations looking to invest in Venezuela, and uses a number of local sources to develop their reports. However, their emails prove that their motives and objectives are far from independent, and they are working as an intelligence and strategy agency for those looking to develop suitable political conditions for economic imperialism, exploitation, and intervention in the country.
Of course we of this blog are mere conspiracy theorists.
OBL had to die. Putting him on trial in the US would’ve been an expensive nightmare (where to find an unbiased jury for one thing) and put every US citizen abroad at risk of being held hostage in return for his release. Better for him to die in a fire-fight and achieve the martyrdom he’s sent so many others to.
I could more easily accept that the rape case against JA was a ruse to return him to Sweden if it hadn’t been for the case being reopened in September 2010, whilst he was still in Sweden and a full two months before the release of the first US diplomatic cables. He didn’t appear to lack support when he first came to this country and the media here were quite willing to work with him.
According to Wikileaks themselves over 15,000 of the cables were classified as secret.
http://wikileaks.org/cablegate.html
I doubt I’m doing you much favours Craig, but I also believe you are spot on with the ISI link. Especially given that his Compound was only a short jog from The Pakistani Military Academy ( Widely described as Pakistan’s West Point).
The main reason I can see for disposing of the body at sea was so that there was no chance of a ‘UBL Shrine’ being created. This would have been inevitable if he was given a traditional burial.
Some people are determined to see conspiracy in every corner, even when there is nothing to see.
As a retired lieutenant commander who spent many years in military signals intelligence, let me assure you, Kempe, that something that is only classified Secret is unlikely to do much damage if released. Anything that could do real damage is classified Top Secret or higher.
Kempe,
Secret and Top Secret are entirely different classifications.
Apologies Lysias, you beat me to it.
Bin Laden was one of them, he was in on it, he wasn’t one of the good guys.
He was playing the Muslims like a fiddle while Murdoch played the rest.
The Bin Laden family have benefited from the War on Terror just as much as the Bush family have.
They created him, the Saudi elite and the American elite created him to do a job. On the morning of 9/11 his name was going out on the TV broadcasts as the towers fell while the American government claimed it came out of the blue and nobody could have expected it let alone known at that stage who might be responsible for it.
They created him then they uncreated him when he wasn’t needed any more.
“There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
— United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld
🙂
I have some Wikileaks documents on my hard drive that I downloaded out of pure curiosity…I am now about to inform the US Embassy in London of the fact and have made sure that I have a couple of tins of sardines by the front door for when the SEALS turn up…bless em !
Craig:
“On Bin Laden, I do believe he died when the US said he did. I had been told by my own sources for years that he was alive and being cared for by the ISI. I also knew the Americans weren’t really looking for him.”
I’d like to believe that too. Especially since had OBL died earlier, it would’ve been in Mullah Omar’s interest to ensure that became public knowledge so as to curtail the reasons for the US being in Afghanistan. However, one thing puzzles me: if he was in ISI’s control, why didn’t Musharraf pull-the-OBL rabbit-out-of-the-hat, rather than having to step down from his role of President, and save his own office. Why did he leave that advantage to Obama? Did he get bought out by the US?
Villager: Who says Musharraf had control over ISI?
“OBL had to die. Putting him on trial in the US would’ve been an expensive nightmare (where to find an unbiased jury for one thing) and put every US citizen abroad at risk of being held hostage in return for his release. Better for him to die in a fire-fight and achieve the martyrdom he’s sent so many others to.”
Put him on trial for what? There’s no evidence he ever actually did anything.
He financed training camps in Afghanistan to train people to fight the Russians with America’s blessing. Some of the people they trained might have bombed USS Cole. Apart from that he didn’t do much of anything except provide a face of Muslim extremism for people to hate just as Bush provided a face of Western arrogance for Muslims to hate while the elite got rich from rebuilding bombed back to the stone age countries financed by their price hiked resources after making fortunes from the armaments that bombed them in the first place.
@ Lysias : I haven’t heard of the rank “lieutenant commander” before. Nationality? Service?
Lt. Commander. United States Navy. American.
Lt Commander. British Navy. UK
Lt Commander. Starfleet. United Federation Of Planets.
The Galaxy.
Navy, I believe.
Lysias. Villager wasn’t saying that. He was saying that OBL was in ISIs control.
O/T A report has been issued by the IPCC on the shocking failings by the Southwark police when dealing with allegations of rape in 2008 and 2009 and their manipulation of statistics and their mishandling of the cases. One rapist was allowed to go free after his accuser was pressured to drop the allegation. He went on to kill his two children.
http://www.channel4.com/news/sapphire-sex-crime-unit-guilty-of-shocking-failings
Ch 4 interviewed the Chief Commisioner Horgan-Howe today. He was totally dismissive. Nothing to do with him. He wasn’t around then etc. He appeared to be unconcerned.
Simon Israel the excellent Ch 4 Home Affairs correspondent writes:
Double scandal on Sapphire
The scandal is twofold. First, the practice of persuading potential victims to retract their statements to boost detection rates is nothing short of cheating the system. We do not know how prevalent this was. The IPCC doesn’t know the scale of this practice back in 2008- 2009 but Southwark went from one of the worst-performing Sapphire areas to one of best. It tripled its detection rates from 10 to 30 per cent, yet no one in the Met queried this sudden leap.
The senior officer operating this policy retired before the IPCC inquiry has even started. A detective sergeant is facing gross miconduct charges but no one is sure if that will ever see the light of day.
And that is the other half of the scandal: lack of accountability. We learned today that in another Sapphire case involving the failure to capture the serial rapist Kirk Reid, not a single senior officer faced gross misconduct hearings despite IPCC pressure.
If the Met wants to gain victims’ confidence, accountability is key.
Craig and Doug, thank you for explaining the bleeding obvious to CE, but its a waste of energy as he’s as stubborn as a paid stooge.
His refrain of Assange must go to Sweden and do the honourable thing is just a little cog-in-the-wheel speak of the Establishment’s thrust to get Assange there and corner him. There is zero chance of your converting him to the compulsion of the hour re Assange’s safety with intelligent debate.
Anyway, with him being in asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy, isn’t any talk of him being extradited from the UK utterly redundant?
Talking of the US killing it’s own citizens with drones … have a look at what Theresa May is doing … she’s stripping ours of their citizenship prior to giving the US the OK.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-secret-war-on-enemy-within–british-terror-suspects-quietly-stripped-of-citizenship-then-killed-by-drones-8513858.html
Is this not illegal? Well, if it’s not it should be; under UK law we’re all entitled to due process are we not?